"When a proceeding under §§ 527.010 to 527.130 involves the determination of an issue of fact, such issue may be tried and determined in the same manner as issues of fact are tried and determined in other civil actions in the court in which the proceeding is pending." Respondent mother contends the case was not specifically brought as a declaratory judgment action under Chapter 527 but is rather an independent equitable action not governed by Chapter 527 and exists in order to enforce the duty of child support of a father so as to obtain the remedies available to an illegitimate child under this Court's decision in R____ v. R____, 431 S.W.2d 152 (Mo. 1968). R____ v. R____ held that the principles applied by the United States Supreme Court in Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68, 88 S.Ct. 1509, 20 L.Ed.2d 436 (1968), and Glona v. American Guarantee Liability Insurance Co., 391 U.S. 73, 88 S.Ct. 1515, 20 L.Ed.2d 441 (1968), would render invalid state action which produces discrimination between legitimate and illegitimate children insofar as the right of a child to compel support by his father is concerned.

In this state the rights of an illegitimate child have been recognized as against the father. In R____ v. R____, 431 S.W.2d 152 (Mo. 1968), relying on Levy and Glona it was held that under our statutes the father of an illegitimate is criminally responsible for the support of the child and that the state is prohibited from discriminating between legitimate and illegitimate children. "The principles applied by the United States Supreme Court would render invalid state action which produces discrimination between legitimate and illegitimate children insofar as the right of the child to compel support by his father is concerned. . . ."

In most jurisdictions filiation proceedings are statutory, so that the rights and duties of interested persons are defined by the wording of the particular statute. In Missouri an illegitimate child had no right to compel support from the father before this court's decision in R____ v. R____, 431 S.W.2d 152 (Mo. 1968). That case established a cause of action for a declaratory judgment on the issue of paternity and, once paternity was established, the right to compel support from the putative father.

Easley v. Gordon, 51 Mo.App. 637 (1892). The inability of an illegitimate to compel support from his father remained the law in Missouri until 1968. R____ v. R____, 431 S.W.2d 152 (Mo. 1968). The holding of Easley v. Gordon has since been overruled by R____ v. R____, 431 S.W.2d 152 (Mo. 1968).

Although the import of the Levy and Glona decisions is still problematic, our Supreme Court and others have interpreted them to compel a construction of our statutes defining the obligations and rights of parents which affords illegitimate children a right equal with that of legitimate children to require support by their fathers. R____ v. R____, Mo., 431 S.W.2d 152, 154 [2]; Munn v. Munn, Colo., 450 P.2d 68, 69 [1, 2]. It is therefore clear that in this jurisdiction, the paternity of an illegitimate child and the liability of his or her putative father for support are matters which can properly be adjudicated and enforced in a declaratory judgment action. R____ v. R____, supra, 431 S.W.2d at 154 [2].

While courts of other States have since Levy held invalid a variety of provisions distinguishing between illegitimate and legitimate children, research discloses no consideration of the constitutional implications of a bar-to-suit provision like section 516, except for Judge POLIER's. See Kaur v Chawla, 11 Wn. App. 362; Walker v Walker, 266 So.2d 385 (Fla); Matter of Jensen, 162 N.W.2d 861 (N Dak); E.M.R. v G.E.R., 431 S.W.2d 152 (Mo). But, see Baston v Sears, 15 Ohio St.2d 166, upholding statutes limiting right of suit for support of illegitimate child.

Plaintiff pretermits what an enthusiast over Levy characterizes as "the interesting question * * * whether it will be extended to the father-child relationship," with what is considered the pleasant result of invalidating "hundreds of state statutes and several federal laws" — not to speak of the common law rule in force when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The highest courts of Ohio and Missouri have reached differing results concerning the illegitimate child's right to paternal support, Baston v. Sears, 15 Ohio St.2d 166, 239 N.E.2d 62 (1968); R____ v. R____, 431 S.W.2d 152 (Mo. 1968); cf. Munn v. Munn, 450 P.2d 68 (Colo. 1969).

In Labine the Court was dealing with the intestate succession laws and thus was concerned with the stability of land titles and promotion of the orderly distribution of property within the state. After Levy and Glona, the Supreme Court of Missouri considered the question of support of illegitimate children in R. v. R., 431 S.W.2d 152 (Mo. 1968), and held: "The decisions of the United States Supreme Court compel the conclusion that the proper construction of our statutory provisions relating to the obligations and rights of parents * * * affords illegitimate children a right equal with that of legitimate children to require support by their father."

See Strahan v. Strahan, 304 F. Supp. 40 (W.D.La. 1969), and Succession of Vincent, 229 So.2d 449 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1969), holding that Louisiana laws of succession are not unconstitutional under the Levy decision. But see Estate of Jensen, 162 N.W.2d 861 (N.Dak. 1968), and R ___ v. R ___, 431 S.W.2d 152 (Mo. 1968). The Glona decision allowed a parent of an illegitimate child to recover for that child's wrongful death.

Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535, 93 S.Ct. 872, 35 L.Ed.2d 56 (1973), held that where a judicially enforceable right to support was granted to legitimate children, it must also be granted to illegitimate children. This Court reached the same position several years earlier, in R. v. R., 431 S.W.2d 152 (Mo. 1968), holding that "illegitimate children [have] a right equal to that of legitimate children to require support by their fathers." Id. at 154.